list_email_security_investigate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Because annotations are absent, the description alone must convey behavior. It only says 'list' results, so an agent cannot know the returned result shape, pagination, ordering, permissions, or whether this is limited to a specific investigation state. The description adds almost no behavioral detail beyond the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Thedescriptions a single,front-loaded sentencewith no fluff. Itis not verbose or repetitive in structure, though its brevity comes at the cost of informative content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what this list represents, but the ambiguous phrase 'investigation results' is not enough. Given a large set of sibling email-security tools, this definition is too incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently or interpret its output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers the single required parameter completely ('account_id' with description 'The account ID'), so the high-coverage baseline applies. The description adds no param-specific meaning, but no compensation is needed for this one well-documented parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description essentially restates the tool name: 'List email security investigation results' adds only the word 'results' to the name 'list_email_security_investigate'. It never defines what an email security investigation or its results are, and it does not distinguish this from siblings such as list_email_security_submissions or get_email_security_message_detections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of the many email-security list/get siblings. An agent cannot tell whether this is the right endpoint for listing investigations versus submissions, messages, detections, or reports.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.